Download Mission-Related Investing at the F.B. Heron Foundation

ission-Related Investing
A Case Study
Expanding Philanthropy:
Mission-Related Investing at the F.B. Heron Foundation
“The heart of the mission-related investing practice is social impact. We understand that the only
true measure of this work is the success of our grantees and investees in producing results.”
— Sharon King, President, F.B. Heron Foundation
School of Community Economic Development
About the F.B. Heron Foundation
Based in New York City, the F.B. Heron Foundation is a private philanthropic institution
that makes grants to and investments in organizations with a track record of building
wealth in low-income communities in the United States. Heron’s mission is helping people and
communities to help themselves.
Created in 1992, the Foundation supports community-based organizations that can
demonstrate tangible results in promoting one or more of the following wealth-creation
strategies for low-income families and communities:
• Advancing home ownership;
• Supporting enterprise development;
• Increasing access to capital; and
• Reducing barriers to full participation in the economy by providing quality child care.
As of December 2006, Heron had $308 million in assets, a $74 million portfolio of
mission-related investments and an annual grantmaking budget of $10 million. For more
information about the Foundation, visit www.fbheron.org.
About the School of Community Economic Development
School of Community
Economic Development
The School of Community Economic Development (SCED) at Southern New Hampshire
University is internationally recognized as a leader in community-economic-development
education and training, applied research, and the development of innovative communityfinance policy and practice initiatives. SCED’s mission is to advance the creation of just economies
and sustainable communities.
Founded in 1982, SCED offers a variety of advanced degree and training programs
at its main campus in New Hampshire, as well as in collaboration with partners in Los
Angeles, Tanzania, southern Africa and the Philippines. SCED has educated more than
2,500 community-development practitioners from more than 100 countries. Graduates
build affordable housing, run community-development financial institutions, promote
microenterprise programs, and develop commercial projects and small businesses in
low-income communities.
SCED is also home to the:
• Applied Research Center (ARC), which provides support to professionals and
policymakers through research, colloquia, institutes and publications;
• Center for Community Economic Development and Disability, which leverages resources,
infrastructure, techniques and expertise in the service of people living with
disabilities; and
• Financial Innovations Roundtable, which develops ideas that link conventional and
nontraditional lenders, investors and markets to provide increased access to capital
and financial services in low-income communities.
In 2007, SCED received a New England Higher Education Excellence Award—the Robert
J. McKenna Award—presented annually to an outstanding academic program by the
New England Board of Higher Education. For more information about SCED, visit
www.snhu.edu/ced.
Published with
generous support by:
About AltruShare Securities, LLC
Launched in 2005, AltruShare Securities, LLC is a for-profit institutional brokerage
firm that is owned by two nonprofit foundations. The first of its kind, the firm allocates
two-thirds of its profits in support of community partners with proven experience in
community-based philanthropy, investment and research. For more information, visit
www.altrushare.com.
Table of Contents
3 The Road to Mission-Related Investing at the F.B. Heron Foundation
1996: The Tipping Point
Guiding Principles: Progressing Incrementally and Learning by Doing
The Results: Better-than-Average Portfolio Performance
4 Heron’s Portfolio
In 2006, the
F.B. Heron Foundation
was recognized as
Small Nonprofit of the Year
by Foundation and
Endowment Money
Management magazine,
a sister publication of
Institutional Investor. The
award was based on
Heron’s mission-related
investment strategy
and performance.
5 Lessons Learned Along the Way
The First Steps
Assembling the Skills: Internal Capacity and Investment Consultants
Learning from Foundations and Other Institutional Investors
Looking First at Existing Relationships
Bridging the Program and Investment Functions
Developing a Pipeline of Market-Rate Investment Opportunities
9 Developing a Mission-Related Investment Continuum
Below-Market Investments
Grants
Program-Related Investments (PRIs)
Market-Rate Mission-Related Investments
Insured Deposits (Cash)
Fixed Income
Publicly Traded Equity
Private Equity
13 Managing the Portfolio
Asset Allocation
Investment Fees
Credits
This case study was developed
by faculty and staff of the
School of Community Economic
Development, including:
• Dr. Michael Swack, founder
and dean;
• Jack Northrup, adjunct
instructor; and
• Janet Prince, director of
strategic partnerships.
Underwriting and Due Diligence
Monitoring
14 Mission-Related Investing: Expanding Philanthropy
15 Bibliography and Resource Guide
Publications
Organizations
The Road to Mission-Related Investing at the F.B. Heron Foundation
Founded in 1992 with the mission of
helping people and communities to
help themselves, the F.B. Heron
Foundation came into being during one
of the greatest economic booms in U.S.
history. The strong financial markets
of the 1990s not only resulted in the
rapid growth of Heron’s asset base
but also served to reinforce its focus
on asset building and community
economic development—as so many
Americans did not benefit from the
economy’s generation of wealth.
1996: The Tipping Point
Faced with the challenges of making
effective grants and managing a growing
endowment, Heron’s board of directors
understood all too well that the scope of
the social problems it sought to address
required more significant resources
than its mandated 5 percent payout. At
a regularly scheduled meeting in 1996,
Heron’s board reviewed a particular
investment manager’s performance
for what seemed like hours, leaving
little time for program matters. This
imbalance caused the board to step
back and evaluate the effectiveness
of the Foundation.
After much discussion, the board
put forth the suggestion that because of
Heron’s social mission and tax-exempt
status, the Foundation should be more
than a private investment company that
uses its excess cash flow for charitable
purposes. Without changes, in the
board’s view, there could be very little
to distinguish the Foundation from a
conventional investment manager.
The board began to view the
5 percent payout requirement as
the narrowest expression of the
Foundation’s philanthropic goals. By
looking to the other 95 percent of
assets, the “corpus,” the board could
“ We recognized that the endowment, left perpetually warehoused, was losing the time
value of its potential mission impact. We wanted to behave more responsibly as stewards
of philanthropic funds.”
— William M. Dietel, Chair, F.B. Heron Foundation
conceive a broader philanthropic
“toolbox” capable of generating
greater social impact than by
grantmaking alone.
Spurred by this “tipping point,”
the board encouraged staff to explore
ways in which Heron could engage
more of its assets through a
combination of grantmaking and
“mission-related” investment
strategies. The board made a
deliberate decision to find ways to
leverage an increasing amount of
Heron’s resources in pursuit of its
mission and therefore maximize the
Foundation’s impact in low-income
communities.
Guiding Principles: Progressing
Incrementally and Learning by Doing
Developing a mission-related
investment strategy did not happen
overnight. Heron invested time refining
its mission and determining how that
mission could be enhanced through a
proactive investment strategy. Initially,
there was some uncertainty as to how
far and how fast the Foundation could
move and therefore a reluctance to
establish specific mission-related
investment targets.
By adopting an incremental
philosophy, the Foundation was able
to test the concept without making any
major missteps. Staff was encouraged
to explore opportunities in core program
areas that would build on existing
networks and expertise, as well as to
share lessons learned along the way.
The Results: Better-than-Average
Portfolio Performance
Contrary to the perception held by
many other foundation trustees and
staff that there is a trade-off between
financial return and social impact,
Heron’s experience during the last
10 years demonstrates that the
objective of achieving competitive
investment returns can be met—even
when incorporating mission-related
investments into an overall portfolio
and asset allocation.
As of December 31, 2006,
Heron’s total fund performance was
in the second quartile of the Mellon
All-Foundation Universe on both a
trailing one-year and three-year
basis, with 18 percent of assets in
market-rate mission-related
investments, 6 percent in belowmarket program-related investments
(PRIs) and 3 percent in grants.
This case study provides
highlights of Heron’s experience as
the Foundation developed a practice
of mission-related investing. While
unique in some respects, Heron’s
journey offers lessons for any
foundation considering whether or
how to utilize its resources more fully
for mission.
3
GROWTH IN MISSION-RELATED INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO
Heron’s Portfolio
80
Market-Rate MissionRelated Investments
70
60
Program-Related
Investments
50
MILLIONS
As shown in the top graph, Heron’s
commitment to mission-related investing
has gradually increased with time. As
of December 31, 2006, 24 percent of
Heron’s assets were invested in missionrelated vehicles spanning the spectrum
of asset classes (18 percent in marketrate mission-related investments and
6 percent in PRIs).
Compared to the Mellon AllFoundation Universe, Heron’s overall
investment performance places it in the
second quartile of private foundations
in each of the past three years. For
more information on Heron’s MissionRelated Investment Continuum and
examples of investments across the
Continuum, see the section “Developing
a Mission-Related Investment
Continuum,” which starts on page 9.
40
30
20
10
0
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
OVERALL ASSET DEPLOYMENT, DECEMBER 2006
18%
73%
Non-Mission-Related Investment Corpus
6%
Market-Rate Mission-Related Investments
3%
Program-Related Investments
Grants
MISSION-RELATED INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO, DECEMBER 2006
Program-Related
Investments
Cash Deposits or CDs
$ 5,800,000
$ 1,500,000
Fixed-Income Securities
21,314,848
—
Loans, Senior
—
12,004,894
Loans, Subordinated
—
2,150,000
Equity, Private
16,000,000
3,300,000
Equity, Public
11,789,209
—
Total
$ 54,904,057
$ 18,954,894
50
MILLIONS
Market-Rate MissionRelated Investments
40
Cash Deposits
or CDs
30
Fixed-Income
Securities
Loans, Senior
20
Loans,
Subordinated
10
Equity, Private
0
Equity, Public
Market-Rate
Mission-Related
Investments
4
Program-Related
Investments
Lessons Learned Along the Way
Unsure of the level of risk and
opportunity in mission-related investing
but convinced that responsible
philanthropy involves taking prudent
risks for public benefit, in 1997, the
F.B. Heron Foundation began a largely
uncharted journey to develop a missionrelated investment strategy. A departure
from traditional foundation grantmaking
and investment management, this
journey has changed the way Heron
practices philanthropy. Heron’s
experience also has challenged the
orthodoxy of foundation investing—
an orthodoxy that maintains a strict
separation between the program and
investment functions, and assumes
there is a trade-off between competitive
financial returns and social impact.
Guided by investment discipline,
Heron has demonstrated that both
program and investment objectives can
be achieved when pursued in concert.
Adding the investment function to
Heron’s philanthropy also has helped
the Foundation have a greater stake in
the future of low-income people and
communities. In short, Heron’s board
saw an opportunity to put more of the
Foundation’s money where its mission
is and has worked diligently to take
advantage of that opportunity.
Understanding the Distinctions Between
Mission-Related and Socially Responsible Investing
Mission-related investing—a proactive approach in use across asset classes—is
often confused with socially responsible investing, which focuses primarily on social
screening and proxy activity in public equities.
According to the Social Investment Forum, socially responsible investing “integrates
personal values and social concerns with investment decisions [and] considers both
the investor’s financial needs and an investment’s impact on society.”
As defined by FSG Social Impact Advisors in its report “Compounding Impact:
Mission Investing by U.S. Foundations,” mission investments are “financial investments
made with the intention of (1) furthering a foundation’s mission and (2) recovering the
principal invested or earning financial return.”
FSG’s report clarifies this distinction in a discussion of socially responsible
screening: “Negative screens, such as avoiding tobacco companies, prevent a
foundation from owning stock in companies with operations or products that conflict with
its mission. Negative screens do not, however, result in a particular mission investment.
Positive screens, such as targeting companies that have strong environmental records,
may yield as mission investments if the screening criteria are specifically tied to the
foundation’s mission. If not, these screened investments are social investments, not
mission investments.”
dozens of active investment managers
and toward building a mission-related
investment portfolio. It’s important to
note that investment performance is
now as good as when the entire
portfolio was under active management
but comes at a lower cost.
The First Steps
Assembling the Skills: Internal
Capacity and Investment Consultants
As Heron took its first steps toward
mission-related investing, the board
decided to transfer some of the
Foundation’s actively managed
investments into index and enhanced
index funds. This strategic decision
was based on widely accepted
research, wholly unrelated to mission
investing, that showed no substantial
long-term active management premium
in many core asset classes.
Taking this step not only reduced
investment-management fees but also
allowed Heron to redirect its
resources—away from managing
Without extensive in-house investment
staffs, most foundations, including
Heron, rely on consultants to identify
investment opportunities, select active
managers and review performance.
These advisors play a critical role in
helping boards provide financial
stewardship.
Faced with the issues of
constructing a mission-related portfolio
and managing transactions, Heron
initially turned to its investment
consulting firm for guidance. The
response was discouraging, as the
firm’s consultants lacked knowledge
about and interest in mission-related
investing. It was at this point that the
board realized the extent to which it
was challenging conventional thinking
and made the decision to build internal
management capacity, bringing certain
functions in house.
The board understood that
Foundation systems and work flow might
have to change to accommodate some
aspects of Heron’s evolving missionrelated investing practice. To address
this need, the board encouraged staff
to take advantage of various training
opportunities. The board also authorized
the creation of a new position that would
be separate from the finance and
administration functions—vice
president of investments.
In filling the position, the
Foundation’s president looked for
someone with extensive investment
experience and the resourcefulness
the Foundation needed to move its
mission-related investment portfolio
5
to greater scale. The results of the
successful search have been an
increase in Heron’s in-house missionrelated investment capacity and
level of sophistication, putting the
Foundation in a position where it
can take advantage of investment
opportunities that offer optimal
mission, risk and return characteristics.
As word of its practice and success
spreads, the Foundation’s expertise
is often called on by others seeking
advice or co-investment opportunities.
For mission-related investing
to gain wider acceptance, the board
and staff knew they needed to find
investment consulting firms that
would appreciate the Foundation’s
commitment to utilizing its resources
more fully for mission. In 1999, Heron
engaged the services of Evaluation
Associates, LLC to provide due
diligence on several private-equity
transactions. These engagements gave
Evaluation Associates the opportunity
to learn about the Foundation’s
mission-related investing strategy
and watch it develop. As the firm’s
knowledge of the Foundation grew,
Evaluation Associates emerged as
an obvious candidate to serve as
Heron’s investment consultant for
both traditional and mission-related
investments, a role Evaluation
Associates assumed in 2004.
While 10 years ago, it was
necessary to build internal capacity
to explore mission investing, the
marketplace has changed, with
evidence of a greater willingness on
the part of traditional investment
consultants to serve mission-based
clients. With foundations driving the
conversation with investment advisors,
this trend should continue, giving more
institutions the guidance and resources
needed to develop appropriate
mission-related investing strategies.
It is only at the insistence of clients
that consultants will learn about
mission-related investment
opportunities and develop the
expertise to judge their merit.
Learning from Foundations and
Other Institutional Investors
Early on, Heron looked to other
foundations and institutional investors
Reality Check: Investment Consulting Firms
Share Their Perspectives
In an article by Andrew Milner in the September 2006 issue of Alliance magazine, a
U.K.-based foundation industry publication, three investment-consulting firms—Cambridge
Associates, Mercer Investment Consulting and Jewson Associates—discussed social
investing. All three agree that it is not their role to bring up the issue of social investing with
their clients, revealing both the challenges and opportunities that foundations face in
working with investment consultants on mission-related investing.
“Do advisors actively bring social investment options to the attention of foundation
investment managers? No…they see it as foundations’ business to seek, rather than
to be led.” The article features Cambridge’s view: “We do not intend to proactively raise
the issue, other than to let clients know that we are here to help them in this area if they
are interested.” Clearly this stance puts the onus on client foundations to initiate the
discussion with their consultants and offers the opportunity to drive the discussion of
mission-related investing as part of the service foundations expect from their advisors.
6
(including commercial banks, insurers
and some public pension funds) for
examples of alternative asset
deployment. This effort revealed some
promising opportunities for missionrelated investing.
Heron learned about below-market
investments from both the Ford and The
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur
foundations—the earliest and largest
practitioners of PRIs. Heron also learned
that The Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation
had embarked on an endowment strategy
that uses shareholder activism and some
direct investing.
In its exploration, Heron
found willing partners among large
commercial banks. Motivated by the
federal Community Reinvestment Act,
these banks often invested alongside
foundations on a below-market basis
in nonprofit, community-development
financial institutions. The banks, as
well as some insurers and public
pension funds, also made investments
in so-called double-bottom-line real
estate and venture-oriented private
equity funds seeking to deliver both
market-rate financial returns and
positive social impact. In expanding
its role beyond that of traditional
grantmaker, Heron found itself in the
company of other types of institutional
investors and gained access to
potential partners and co-investors.
Looking First at Existing Relationships
Through partnerships with communitybased organizations and financial
intermediaries, Heron has witnessed
firsthand the transformative power
of investing in America’s low-income
communities—primarily through home
ownership, enterprise development
and access to capital. As such, Heron
determined that its grantee pool offered
a natural place to look for opportunities
to make below-market PRIs.
With PRIs in Heron’s philanthropic
toolbox, program officers began a
fundamentally different dialogue about
community-development finance with
grantee organizations, especially those
capable of utilizing debt. To prompt
these discussions, Heron’s staff added
a financing section to grant paperwork.
Heron views its investments as
relationships, not just deals. Because
Heron understands the management
and operational histories of its grantees,
staff has found that the quality of the
underwriting is often better than it
otherwise might be. This knowledge,
trust and understanding have added a
valuable dimension to the investment
process that has benefited both Heron
and its investees. For example, if
investments become troubled, having a
long-term relationship helps to facilitate
conversations in ways that would be
difficult for a conventional “lender.”
Heron has experienced the benefits
of this approach since it first began
making PRIs in 1997.
Heron has learned that not all
grantees need investments and not all
investees need grants. Today, while
Heron has PRIs with only 14 percent
“ Finance officers often stereotype program officers as soft-headed social workers with the easiest
job in the world, because how difficult is it to give away money? Similarly, program officers
stereotype their finance counterparts as hard-hearted capitalists with little interest in the
programmatic work of the foundation, focused solely on the last basis point or two of ‘alpha.’
“ The challenge is getting both sides to work together—by encouraging them and giving them the
right incentives—so that everyone is contributing their distinct competencies and maximizing the
potential impact of the foundation.”
— Luther M. Ragin Jr., Vice President of Investments, F.B. Heron Foundation
of its grantees, nearly 75 percent of
the Foundation’s PRIs are in groups
with which Heron has or has had an
established relationship. Now that
Heron’s engagement as a mission-related
investor is more widely known, the
Foundation fields investment requests
from familiar and unfamiliar sources.
Bridging the Program and
Investment Functions
Initial discussions with grantees about
potential PRIs began with Heron’s
program staff—who, in preparing
proposals to present to the vice
president of investments for first-level
approval, reviewed business plans as
well as discussed capital needs,
Using Resources Effectively
Strategic Board Leadership, Staff-Led Implementation
It goes without saying that to be successful in developing a mission-related investing
strategy, a foundation must have the support of its board. While a foundation’s executive
and professional staff may lead the board to a discussion of mission-related investing, a
foundation will miss the transformative effects of this shift in strategy without a true and
dedicated commitment of its board.
With the strategic leadership and full support of its board, staff is responsible for
successful implementation. A chief executive officer who encourages openness and
flexibility in achieving goals will engender confidence in staff members responsible for
implementation. The success of mission-related investing also relies, in large part, on the
ability of front-line staff members to think creatively and analytically about where and
how they will identify, recommend and underwrite investment opportunities.
management capabilities and financial
projections. While grantmaking skills
could be applied in some areas, it
became clear that program staff
needed guidance in understanding the
investment risks involved and how
best to structure deals to mitigate
those risks.
As Heron’s prospecting efforts
turned into a pipeline of tangible
deals, the Foundation knew it would
benefit from the cross-fertilization of
in-house expertise. Heron began a
conscious effort to bridge the program
and investment functions—a
significant departure from how typical
foundations are organized and staffed.
While many program staff
members appreciated the benefits of
having access to a new philanthropic
tool and the chance to work more
closely with investment colleagues,
others did not feel as comfortable with
the training, mentoring and analysis
that making PRIs demanded. The
result was some staff turnover through
attrition—not uncommon with any
significant programmatic change. In
replacing staff, Heron looked for—and
attracted—officers who felt comfortable
with the financial analysis and the
investment process. The new staff
faced its own challenge of developing
expertise in judging the appropriate
use of investment “subsidies” to
further Heron’s mission.
7
Similar to other aspects of
developing its mission-related
investing practice, creating a bridge
between the program and investment
functions took time. The end result is
a collaborative model, with staff in the
two functional areas working side by
side, and investment staff serving as
the “tie breaker.” In this model:
•
•
Program staff brings expertise in
translating mission into on-theground results. Program knowledge
and experience informs strategic
thinking about the potential
for social impact. Program
officers’ familiarity with grantee
organizations as well as local
and regional networks often
serves as an excellent resource
in identifying deal flow.
Investment staff brings expertise
and rigor in underwriting and
structuring transactions. This
also is critical to weighing
risk and return, establishing
appropriate performance
benchmarks for each asset class,
and managing the portfolio within
the asset-allocation parameters
established by the board.
By bridging these functional and
cultural divides, Heron benefits from
having all of its officers focused on
mission. With training from Heron’s
in-house investment staff and outside
consultants, Heron’s program staff has
developed experience in and comfort
with prospecting, underwriting and
monitoring mission-related investments.
Investment staff has gained a concrete
understanding of the on-the-ground
impact of Heron’s work. In many cases,
the staff has seen relationships between
the Foundation and investees deepen.
8
“ The board views its fiduciary duty as getting the most social impact possible for each dollar in
its endowment. Happily, aggressive mission-related investing policies have not hindered our
ability to achieve total investment returns in the second quartile for the past several years.”
— William M. Dietel, Chair, F.B. Heron Foundation
Developing a Pipeline of Market-Rate
Investment Opportunities
In addition to working with program
staff to make PRIs in organizations
where there are existing relationships,
Heron’s investment staff works to build
the Foundation’s market-rate portfolio
of mission-related investments in three
primary ways:
1. Conducting active outreach efforts
to identify mission-related
investment opportunities within
various asset classes. To find
investment opportunities, Heron
relies on a range of outreach
activities, from engaging networks
to contacting placement agents.
As Heron’s Vice President of
Investments Luther M. Ragin Jr.
says, “If you don’t actively pursue
opportunities, then you’re
guaranteed not to come across
any.” Once an investor starts
closing deals, a larger universe of
opportunities emerges and the issue
becomes identifying the best ones.
2. Creatively adapting traditional
investment vehicles and asset
managers to mission goals.
Heron also has actively solicited
opportunities where a bit of
creativity has made all the
difference. For example, Heron
used a simple request-forproposals process to identify
fixed-income managers who are
capable of managing a separate
bond account aligned with the
Foundation’s programmatic goals.
3. Researching and developing new
investment vehicles, as necessary.
While Heron did not have any
mission-related investments in
public equity for several years,
the board knew it wanted to
participate in one of the largest
and most liquid financial markets
in the world. To do so, Heron
funded research that led to the
creation of the Community
Investment Index. Heron is
currently beta testing the index
using a positively screened, bestin-class methodology to identify
publicly traded companies with
superior records of engagement
with underserved communities.
(For more information about the
index, see page 12.)
In evaluating each potential marketrate mission-related investing
opportunity, Heron considers at least
three perspectives:
•
Where does the investment fit
within the Foundation’s overall
portfolio?
•
What are the risk and return
considerations of the investment?
•
How does the investment
demonstrably further the
Foundation’s mission?
“We look for expertise in the sectors
where we want to invest, and we
choose partners based on how well
the deal fits our criteria,” says Ragin.
Developing a Mission-Related Investment Continuum
Below-Market Investments
HERON’S MISSION-RELATED INVESTMENT CONTINUUM
Market-Rate Mission-Related Investments
Cash
Fixed
Income
Public
Equity
Private
Equity
Grants
Market-Rate Mission-Related Investments
higher risk
lower risk
lower risk
higher risk
Grant
Support
higher risk
Grant
Support
lower risk
Private
Equity
Subordinated
Loans
Senior
Loans
Guarantees
lower risk
higher risk
Cash
Below-Market Investments
In developing its mission-related
portfolio, Heron has explored
investment opportunities within all
asset classes. To help sort through the
opportunities that mission-related
investing presents, the Foundation’s
staff developed the “Mission-Related
Investment Continuum.”
The Continuum lays out a set of
asset classes available to missionrelated investors. On the left side
are below-market investments,
including grants and PRIs (private
equity, subordinated loans, senior
loans and cash). On the right side
are mission-related investments that
generate market rates of return. The
least risky investments can be found
in the center of the Continuum; the
risk level increases as you move
toward both ends. (Guarantees are
the exception, as their risk level
depends on how they are structured.)
In developing the Continuum,
Heron staff considered the central
tenets of traditional investing
discipline: asset allocation,
performance benchmarking, and
security or manager selection. Heron’s
asset-allocation policy—which is
paramount to portfolio performance—
has not changed to accommodate its
mission-related investing practice.
Rather, mission-related investing
1
opportunities are considered within
the overall asset-allocation framework
of a well-diversified portfolio.
Heron also has identified
appropriate performance benchmarks
by asset class to evaluate relative
performance, and to compare both risk
and return for its mission-related
investments versus standard, capital
market measures. In choosing its
mission-related investments, staff
considers a number of variables,
including track record, investment
strategy and market opportunity.
As outlined in the sections that
follow, Heron has taken advantage
of mission-related investment
opportunities across the Continuum.
In some ways, Heron’s mission is
particularly well suited for such
opportunities. Foundations that are
active in fields where investment and
lending may be more limited may find
it challenging to identify the same
breadth of opportunities. As such,
not all foundations will employ
mission-related investing along the
entire Continuum; one or two asset
classes may be sufficient. In these
cases, determining where to start
depends on opportunities presented
that are most consistent with mission
and investment goals.
Below-Market Investments
As core support, grants act as
“working capital” for nonprofit
organizations. Heron includes grants
on its Continuum—even though they
do not provide a financial return—
because they arguably represent the
riskiest below-market “asset class.”
In relation to its investment activities,
part of Heron’s grantmaking has
enabled the Foundation to establish
and develop relationships with
organizations that are on the road to
“investment readiness.”
Program-Related Investments (PRIs)
Market-Rate Mission-Related Investments
higher risk
Private
Equity
lower risk
Sub.
Loans
Senior
Loans
lower risk
higher risk
Cash
Below-Market Investments
Defined in the U.S. tax code, PRIs1
are made by foundations to nonprofit
organizations or commercial ventures
for charitable purposes. Whether debt
or equity, PRIs typically provide funds
for specific purposes, such as land
conservation, affordable housing,
community facilities and communitydevelopment venture capital. According
to the Foundation Center’s most recent
data, U.S. foundations invested $237
million through PRIs in 2004.
Both recipients and investors
can benefit from PRIs. For recipients,
PRIs offer access to capital on
concessionary terms. In some cases,
PRIs also help attract other sources
of capital—demonstrating nonprofits’
creditworthiness and fueling future
The Internal Revenue Service stipulates that PRIs meet three criteria: the investment’s primary purpose must be to advance the foundation’s charitable
objectives; neither the production of income nor the appreciation of property can be a significant purpose; and the funds cannot be used directly or
indirectly for lobbying or political purposes.
9
growth. Foundations benefit in that
the repayment or return of capital is
recycled for other charitable purposes.
Eligible to be counted as charitable
distributions, PRIs also add flexibility
in asset management.
As foundations’ interest in
below-market investing has grown,
informal networking has coalesced in
the form of the PRI Makers Network.
This nationwide association offers
networking, professional development,
collaboration and outreach to
interested funders, including those
not currently making PRIs.
Heron made its first missionrelated investment in 1997—a PRI
in the form of a senior loan to New
Jersey Community Capital to expand
and improve child-care facilities. As
its PRI portfolio has grown, Heron has
found many investment opportunities
with different risk and return
characteristics:
•
•
•
Insured deposits in fledgling, rural
credit unions at below-market
rates through intermediaries such
as the National Federation of
Community Development Credit
Unions;
Senior loans to small business
loan funds, such as North
Carolina-based Self-Help Ventures
Fund that invests in businesses
and community facilities in
low-income communities;
Supporting Community-Development Financial Institutions
Since its inception in 1985, The Reinvestment Fund (TRF) has helped to finance 14,440
units of affordable housing, 16,610 charter school slots, 29,470 new or retained jobs,
290 businesses, 5 million square feet of commercial space, and 1 million megawatt
hours of clean energy—enough to power more than 100,000 homes for a year. This
impressive track record in Philadelphia and the Mid-Atlantic region makes TRF a national
leader in the financing of neighborhood revitalization.
Heron has provided grant support to TRF since 1994. These grants have helped TRF
fund operating costs, loan loss reserves and policy work. In recent years, grants have
supported the research and development of a sophisticated Outcomes Database, which
integrates organizationwide investment information with the ability to generate maps
to assist in underwriting decisions, development planning, impact assessment and
general research. Heron grants have also helped TRF develop a proprietary analysis
and mapping tool, the Market Value Analysis (MVA), which helps municipalities analyze
local real-estate-market conditions and guide investments.
TRF’s information systems support the investment strategy for its $380 million in
assets. Making up part of that capital base is a $500,000 PRI from Heron. Heron’s funds
are targeted to the small-business lending program, which TRF uses to make loans to
businesses located in and hiring from low-income communities. In different ways, Heron’s
grants and PRIs sustain TRF by helping meet its need for capital—grants to cover expenses
and PRIs to fund lending—while also supporting Heron’s program and mission goals.
Private-equity venture funds,
including New Markets Venture
Capital Companies, Rural
Business Investment Companies
and community-development
venture-capital funds.
At nearly $20 million, Heron’s PRI
portfolio offers a steady return,
measured against a benchmark of
the long-term inflation rate plus
1 percent, without any losses to date.
Market-Rate Mission-Related
Investments
Insured Deposits (Cash)
Subordinated loans to provide
credit enhancement for affordable
housing development, such as the
New York City Acquisition Fund,
LLC; and
Using Grants and PRIs Together
10
•
Market-Rate Mission-Related Investments
Cash
higher risk
lower risk
lower risk
higher risk
Below-Market Investments
Market-rate insured deposits offer an
inexpensive, low-risk way—either
through direct deposits or through
intermediaries—to make missionrelated investments. For example, the
Certificate of Deposit Account Registry
Service (CDARS)—a service of
Promontory Interfinancial Network
created so community banks could
“pool” their $100,000 FDIC coverage
limits to attract larger deposits—
allows investors to make deposits in
certain institutions, including more
than a dozen community-development
banks, of up to $30 million with full
FDIC insurance coverage.
As part of its commitment to its
access-to-capital program area, Heron
places deposits in a number of the
nation’s 60 community-development
banks and more than 1,000 “lowincome designated” credit unions. To
ensure mission fit, Heron adopted a
policy that targeted deposits to
institutions that:
•
Are certified communitydevelopment financial institutions
In early 2007, TIAA-CREF announced a
$22 million market-rate deposit through
the Certificate of Deposit Account
Registry Service in ShoreBank, the
nation’s oldest and largest communitydevelopment bank with branches in
Chicago, Detroit and Cleveland. The
bank’s assets approach $2 billion.
by the U.S. Department of the
Treasury;
•
•
Have a significant portion of their
lending activity in asset-building
activities in low-income
communities, such as small
business lending and home
mortgage origination; and
Have an appetite for market-rate
deposits.
While these criteria made sense to
Heron given its programmatic focus,
there are many other criteria (health
care, education, immigration) that
foundations could use to identify
prospects.
With a $5.8 million portfolio of
insured deposits—nearly 2 percent of
its total assets—Heron views marketrate deposits as an important part of its
engagement in community-development
finance. The return to this cashequivalent portfolio is in line with rates
offered in the national CD market and
compares favorably to the Merrill Lynch
91-day T-bill rate as a benchmark.
Fixed Income
Market-Rate Mission-Related Investments
Fixed
Income
higher risk
lower risk
lower risk
higher risk
Below-Market Investments
Heron also targets some of its bond
allocation in ways that benefit low-
income people and communities. In
2001, Heron established a separately
managed bond account, giving it
control and flexibility in meeting the
Foundation’s mission and portfolio goals.
Using input from Heron on
mission considerations, the
Foundation’s fixed-income manager
identifies investment-grade fixedincome securities that are issued by
both public and private entities.
Mission-related bonds range
from down-payment assistance for
low-income, first-time homebuyers
in Texas to “blight bonds” issued
by the city of Philadelphia as part
of its Neighborhood Transformation
Initiative. Heron’s fixed-income
manager, Community Capital
Management (formerly CRAFund
Advisors), has learned to recognize
Heron opportunities in the
marketplace. Heron’s staff also
has uncovered opportunities for
the account in the field.
Heron’s fixed-income portfolio
now contains a wide range of bonds
from across the country. Some of the
securities are backed by pools of
loans originated by community-based
nonprofit organizations and aggregated
by the Community Reinvestment Fund.
Heron’s mission-related fixed-income
portfolio stands at $21 million and
has outperformed its benchmark, the
Lehman Brothers Aggregate, since
inception.
Publicly Traded Equity
Market-Rate Mission-Related Investments
Public
Equity
higher risk
lower risk
lower risk
higher risk
Below-Market Investments
While there is a long history of
socially responsible investing, Heron
has not often found alignment between
its mission and traditional approaches
to socially responsible investing.
Since relatively few social screens or
Improving Data to Enhance Investment Opportunities
Working with the Small Business Administration
Small business development aims to facilitate a broad range of entrepreneurial and
business endeavors. To find securities backed by loans guaranteed by the Small
Business Administration’s (SBA) Section 7(a) Loan Guaranty Program that would fit
Heron’s mission-related fixed-income investment strategy, the SBA pools needed to be
screened on parameters such as location in low-income communities or areas with high
concentrations of minority residents.
Community Capital Management worked with SBA originators to determine whether
information such as location in low- and moderate-income census tracts and number
of employees could be added to loan descriptions so that the pooling agencies could
develop customized pools of loans for institutional investors. Excited by the possibility
that the universe of investors with an appetite for these types of loans could expand,
SBA originators provided the necessary information.
This adaptation served the needs of all parties involved. Heron could better meet its
mission through more careful targeting of its fixed-income investments, the investment
manager gained access to a larger universe of investment opportunities for its client and
the loan originators were able to expand their reach and attract new investments.
11
shareholder resolutions are related to
the goal of asset building or wealth
creation for low-income people and
communities, Heron’s board made the
decision early on to prioritize direct
investment strategies. As a missiondriven institutional investor, however,
Heron understands the importance of
corporate engagement in helping
people in low-income communities
help themselves. That’s why, in 2005,
Heron embarked on a path of research
and development for a positively
screened, best-in-class methodology
for investing in U.S. public equities.
With assistance from Innovest
Strategic Value Advisors, a research
firm with extensive experience in
environmental assessment and
quantitative modeling, Heron created a
methodology for selecting best-in-class
companies in each industry in the S&P
900 based on the quality of their
engagement with low- and moderateincome communities in the U.S. Taking
into account corporate strategy, work
force development, wealth creation
and corporate philanthropy, this
methodology led to the creation of the
Community Investment Index.
Based on the promising results
of a back test, Heron committed a
portion of its U.S. Large-Cap allocation
for a beta test of the index’s approach.
State Street Global Advisors was
selected as the asset manager. In
2006, the first full year of the beta
test, the index returned 15.0 percent
versus 15.3 percent for the S&P 900
and 13.2 percent for the Domini 400,
the most widely used benchmark
for large-capitalization socially
responsible equity investing. Heron
is creating a commingled investment
product that the Foundation hopes
will be attractive to other institutions
committed to investing in low-income
communities in the U.S.
12
Private Equity
Market-Rate Mission-Related Investments
Private
Equity
higher risk
lower risk
lower risk
higher risk
Below-Market Investments
“The Competitive Advantage of the
Inner City,” published in 1995 by
Harvard Business School Professor
Michael E. Porter, provided the basis
for a fundamental rethinking of
investor attitudes toward inner-city
communities. In his article, Porter
argues that past efforts to revitalize
inner cities failed primarily because
these efforts lacked a coherent
economic strategy. “A sustainable
economic base can be created in the
inner city,” he stresses, “but only as it
has been created elsewhere—through
private for-profit initiatives and
investment based on economic selfinterest and genuine competitive
advantage.”
In the years since this article was
published, scores of private equity
funds—real estate, venture, mezzanine
and buyout—have emerged under
experienced, professional managers
with an explicit focus on inner cities
and underserved communities. Assets
under management of such funds now
exceed $5 billion.
One of Heron’s first private-equity
investments was UrbanAmerica, LP,
a private real estate fund that acquires
and develops commercial properties
in inner-city communities throughout
the country, providing opportunities
for corporate, government and retail
tenants to locate facilities there. The
result has been increased property
values, improved consumer choices
and services, and permanent
employment opportunities for
neighborhood residents. UrbanAmerica
also directs more than 50 percent of its
contracts for management, security and
landscaping services to communitybased and minority-owned businesses.
Focused on real estate and
later-stage venture financing,
Heron currently has $16 million
in outstanding market-rate private
equity commitments, measuring their
performance against a benchmark of
the Russell 3000 plus 3 percent. The
real estate portfolio is generating net
returns from the low to the upper
teens, and venture funds are producing
net returns on realized investments of
more than 20 percent.
Yucaipa Limited Partnerships—
Private Equity Making a Difference
Yucaipa Corporate Initiatives Fund, LP is a private equity fund that invests in corporate
partnerships that relocate or expand their operations in underserved communities. One
of its investments is Picadilly Cafeterias Inc., a chain of family-style restaurants primarily
located in the South.
In 2004, Yucaipa rescued Picadilly Cafeterias from bankruptcy. Yucaipa then made
an equity investment that financed improvements in operations, which led to increased
profitability. By preserving 5,200 jobs and creating an additional 600 jobs for local
residents, the investment also fueled economic growth and created positive change in
many low-income communities.
Managing the Portfolio
As mentioned earlier, Heron fulfills its
fiduciary duty by paying close attention
to asset allocation, investment fees,
underwriting and due diligence, and
monitoring.
Asset Allocation
As is the case for most institutional
investors, Heron’s board establishes
an asset-allocation strategy for the
Foundation’s portfolio based on total
return, as well as liquidity and
diversification. Mission-related
investment opportunities are
considered within this asset-allocation
framework.
Heron’s current asset allocation is
approximately 65 percent in equities,
25 percent in fixed-income securities
and 10 percent in alternative
investments, such as private equity.
This allocation governs all investing,
both traditional and mission-related.
Investment Fees
With nearly one-half of its investment
portfolio in index and enhanced index
investments, Heron’s investmentmanagement fees were 34 basis points
in 2006. This is below the mean of
other private foundations in widely
known investment surveys.
Underwriting and Due Diligence
Heron’s program officers are involved
in underwriting PRIs as a natural
consequence of sourcing deals from
the grantee pool. Officers begin by
formulating a mission-related
investment thesis that makes a case
for investing from both a program and
a financial point of view.
To provide additional rigor to
underwriting and mentorship
opportunities for program officers,
Heron has developed a practice of
requiring supplemental third-party
“ In order for a foundation to maximize its value, the general understanding of philanthropy
must shift from one that is transactive (i.e., a form of wealth re-distribution) to one that is
investment-oriented (i.e., focused upon long-term value created through the application of
available resources).”
— Jed Emerson, Generation Foundation, in “A Capital Idea: Total Foundation Asset
Management and the Unified Investment Strategy”
due-diligence reviews for all of
its below-market mission-related
transactions. This “second pair of
eyes” provides program officers with
a partner during the due-diligence
process and provides Heron with
an independent, arm’s-length review.
Heron’s cadre of third-party
consultants is a cost-effective way
to maintain a deep bench of expertise.
However, these external reviews
supplement, not supplant, staff’s
judgment. As is the case with
grantmaking, program officers are
ultimately responsible for making
wholehearted and well-reasoned
mission-related investment
recommendations.
Investment staff underwrites
Heron’s market-rate, mission-related
investments. Due diligence, which
often includes a third-party review to
complement staff efforts, involves
consideration of the manager’s
investment thesis, market opportunity,
return potential and risk assessment.
The Foundation looks to third-party
reviewers for help in understanding the
investment risks in a given transaction,
not to assess social impact.
track developments in PRIs.
Additionally, the staff meets on a
quarterly basis to review the risk level
in each transaction.
As in its underwriting, Heron uses
third-party monitoring reports for all
of its mission-related investments.
This third-party approach has allowed
Heron to create a larger universe of
analysts, selected according to their
expertise in specific asset classes.
This approach also has increased
Heron’s ability to cover a range of
deal structures and transaction types.
Monitoring efforts have revealed
a number of issues that investees
face, such as leadership transitions,
fundraising disappointments and
market changes that sometimes lead
to deteriorating financial health. In
most cases, Heron has taken steps to
stay with its investees through tough
times, such as by requiring more
frequent monitoring, collateral or
principal amortization.
Monitoring
Because investments take on a life
of their own and rarely remain static
with time, Heron monitors all aspects
of its portfolio. Program officers, in
consultation with investment staff,
13
Mission-Related Investing: Expanding Philanthropy
During the past 10 years, Heron’s
experience shows that the objective of
achieving competitive investment returns
can be met while incorporating missionrelated investments into a diversified
portfolio. Guided by investment
discipline and incremental
implementation, Heron has
demonstrated that both program and
investment objectives can be achieved
when pursued in alignment with a
foundation’s mission.
As Ragin points out, “Back in
1997, if you were to ask the board, ‘In
how many asset classes are we likely
to find appropriate investments that
align with our mission?,’ they probably
would have said, ‘There aren’t many,
but let’s try to find the best
opportunities we can and do what we
can.’” Today, the answer is clearer: In
the field of community development,
there is a variety of strong investment
opportunities across asset classes and
return hurdles that not only aligns with
Heron’s mission but also can increase
the impact and reach of its work.
Investment performance ranking
is not subjective. By the nature
of quartiles, one-half of ranked
foundations enjoy higher investment
returns than the other half. With
24 percent of its assets in missionrelated investments—including
6 percent at below-market rates of
return—Heron’s ability to generate
above-average investment performance
and grow the level of the endowment
presents an opportunity for the entire
sector.
Today’s mission-related investing
environment is very different from the
one Heron encountered in 1996. Now,
there are mission-related investment
vehicles in virtually every asset class.
As Ragin says: “That is really the
story here. While each foundation will
14
“ Learn by doing. If we hadn’t just moved ahead and done our first program-related investment
in 1997, we’d still be sitting around talking about doing it. This capacity was not developed
overnight, but it did happen over time.”
— Mary Jo Mullan, Vice President of Programs, F.B. Heron Foundation
have to work at visualizing its own
mission through an investment
strategy, there is no need to reinvent
the wheel.” Financial intermediaries
and consultants provide both
investment products and advisory
services. Perceived and actual levels
of risk have declined with time. With
the successful return of capital and
interest, the nonprofit sector has
demonstrated its ability to build
investment capacity and offers a
broad range of opportunities for
value-seeking investors.
As a medium-sized, national
foundation, Heron seeks to deploy its
resources as effectively as possible.
Making mission-related investments,
in addition to grants, has increased the
level of engagement and intensified
the need to focus on impact as the
criterion for resource allocation.
Heron’s staff and board now spend
their time actively managing and
reviewing mission-related investing
and grantmaking activities as part of
an overall portfolio approach—a shift
away from the frustration experienced
when the board spent inordinate time
on investment manager performance.
Board meetings now focus both on
portfolio performance and mission
impact. Mission-related investing is
the intersection of the two—allowing
for more far-reaching discussions
among Heron’s leadership.
The F.B. Heron Foundation has
moved well beyond the tipping point
toward a fully diversified missionrelated investing practice. Indeed,
Heron continues today to expand its
vision and investment horizons—using
its broad experience in working with
community-based organizations—to
bring the full weight of its resources,
and those of other investors, to bear on
its mission. No longer does Heron view
low-income people and neighborhoods
merely as candidates for grant funding.
It views them as good investments.
This case study seeks to contribute to
the dialogue on the expanded use of
foundation assets. Just as the F.B. Heron
Foundation believes that mission-related
investing has enriched its philanthropic
practice, other foundations may find
that if they were to harness more of
their resources for the issues that
concern them, philanthropy and society
would stand to gain.
Bibliography and Resource Guide
Clark, Catherine H. and Gaillard,
Josie Taylor, “The Double Bottom Line
Private Equity Landscape in
2002–2003,” Rise Capital Market
Report, July 2003.
Lingenfelter, Paul E., “Program
Related Investments: Do They Cost,
Or Do They Pay?,” The John D. and
Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation,
1996.
Community Development Financial
Institutions (CDFIs) Data Project,
“Providing Capital, Building
Communities, Creating Impact,”
4th Edition, 2006.
Milken Institute, “What Are Emerging
Domestic Markets?” from the sixth
annual Milken Institute Global
Conference, Los Angeles, Calif.,
April 2, 2003.
“A New Journey: Aligning Investment
with Mission at the Northwest Area
Foundation,” Northwest Area
Foundation.
Cooch, Sarah and Kramer, Mark,
“Compounding Impact: Mission
Investing by U.S. Foundations,”
FSG Social Impact Advisors,
March 2007.
Nonprofit Finance Fund, “Capital
Structure Counts,” New York, N.Y.,
2002.
www.nwaf.org
www.fsg-impact.org
Angelides, Philip, “The Double
Bottom Line: Investing in California’s
Emerging Markets,” May 2000.
Cooch, Sarah and Kramer, Mark,
“Investing for Impact, Managing and
Measuring Proactive Social
Investments,” Foundation Strategy
Group, for the Shell Foundation,
January 2006.
The following publications and Web
sites offer information about missionrelated investing. Many also served as
sources for this case study.
Publications
“2005 Report on Socially Responsible
Investing Trends in the United States,
10-Year Review,” Social Investment
Forum, January 2006.
www.socialinvest.org
Baxter, Christie I., “Program-Related
Investments: A Technical Manual for
Foundations,” 1997.
Berenbach, Shari, and Khor,
Jacqueline, “Private Investment for
Social Goals and the Blended Value
Capital Market” (discussion draft
based on “The Investors Toolkit,” by
Jed Emerson, Timothy Freundlich and
Shari Berenbach), September 2004.
Brody, Francie, “Great Ideas: Social
Investments Supporting Human
Services,” Brody, Weiser and Burns,
November 2002.
Brody, Francie; McQueen, Kevin;
Velasquez, Christa; and Weiser, John;
“Current Practices in Program-Related
Investing,” 2002.
Brody, Francie; Weiser, John; and Miller,
Scott; Joffe, Phyllis (editor), “Matching
Program Strategy and PRI Cost.”
Cambridge Associates, “Social
Investing,” 2007.
Cambridge Associates, “Social
Investing: A Statistical Summary,”
2007.
Emerson, Jed. “A Capital Idea: Total
Foundation Asset Management and the
Unified Investment Strategy,”
Generation Foundation, April 1, 2004.
Emerson, Jed, “Where Money Meets
Mission: Breaking Down the Firewall
Between Foundation Investments and
Programming,” Stanford Social
Innovation Review, summer 2003.
Funders’ Network for Smart Growth
and Livable Communities, “Doing
Well by Doing Good: Innovative
Foundation Investments in PlaceBased Smart Growth Development,”
September 2002.
Korman, Rochelle Esq., “Legal Issues
of Leverage Through Program-Related
Investments,” from Merrill Lynch
Private Wealth Management Third
Annual Conference for Foundations
and Strategic Philanthropy, Princeton,
N.J., June 6, 2003.
Olsen, Sara and Tasch, Woody (editor),
“Mission Related Investing, A
Workshop for Foundations with
Detailed Examples from the Field
of Community Investing,” October/
November 2003.
www.investorscircle.net
Porteous, David and Narain, Saurabh,
“Defining and Measuring the
Performance of Community
Development Banking Institutions,”
NCIF Development Banking
Conference, Chicago, Ill., November
2006.
Porter, Michael E., “The Competitive
Advantage of the Inner City,” 1995.
Porter, Michael E. and Kramer, Mark
R., “Philanthropy’s New Agenda:
Creating Value,” Harvard Business
Review, November–December 1999,
reprint.
Ragin, Luther M. Jr., “New Frontiers in
Mission-Related Investing,” New York,
N.Y., The F.B. Heron Foundation,
2004.
Thomsen, Mark, and Wheat, Doug,
“The New Fiduciary Duty,” Business
Ethics, spring 2003.
15
Viederman, Stephen, “New Directions
in Fiduciary Responsibility,” Stephen
Viederman, 2003. “Foundations and
Mission-Related Investing,” August
2002.
www.foundationpartnership.org
Yago, Glenn; Zeidman, Betsy; and
Schmidt, Bill; “Creating Capital, Jobs
and Wealth in Emerging Domestic
Markets,” Milken Institute, Santa
Monica, Calif., 2002.
Organizations
F.B. Heron Foundation
www.fbheron.org
CDFI Fund
www.cdfifund.gov
National Federation of Community
Development Credit Unions
State Street Global Advisors
www.natfed.org
The Reinvestment Fund (TRF)
Neighborhood Transformation Initiative
www.trfund.com
www.phila.gov/nti
UrbanAmerica, LP
New Jersey Community Capital
www.urbanamerica.com
www.newjerseycommunitycapital.org
Yucaipa Corporate Initiatives Fund, LP
9130 W. Sunset Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90069
New Markets Venture Capital Program
http://www.cdfa.net/cdfa/cdfaweb.nsf/
pages/jan2004tlc.html
New York City Acquisition Fund, LLC
www.nyc.gov/html/hpd/html/developers/
acquisition_fund.shtml
PRI Makers Network
www.primakers.net
www.ccmfixedincome.com
Promontory Interfinancial Network
(home of the Certificate of Deposit
Account Registry Service or
“CDARS”)
Community Reinvestment Fund
www.cdars.com
www.crfusa.com
Rural Business Investment Program
Evaluation Associates, LLC
http://www.cdfa.net/cdfa/cdfaweb.nsf/
pages/jan2004tlc.html
Community Capital Management
(formerly CRAFund Advisors)
www.eval-assoc.com
Ford Foundation
www.fordfound.org
Foundation Center
http://foundationcenter.org
FSG Social Impact Advisors (formerly
Foundation Strategy Group)
School of Community Economic
Development
www.snhu.edu/ced
Self-Help Ventures Fund
www.self-help.org
ShoreBank
www.fsg-impact.org
www.shorebankcorp.com
Innovest Strategic Value Advisors
Small Business Administration
www.innovestgroup.com
www.sba.gov
Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation
Social Investment Forum
www.noyes.org
www.socialinvest.org
John D. and Catherine T.
MacArthur Foundation
Southern New Hampshire University
www.macfound.org
16
www.snhu.edu
www.ssga.com
School of Community Economic Development
© School of Community Economic Development, 2007